Thursday, June 14, 2007

God Bless The Rest Of Us - Volume 4

Look at this! I get to bash the state of Massachusetts for two days in a row, but it’s been a slow week, and at least I am willing to admit it. Today is June 14 and that was what was to be the proposed day for the constitutional convention to vote on the Gay Marriage amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution. The vote went down in a roll call fashion and the people will not be able to vote on the issue at all as the final tally was 151 to 45. 50 was the number that was needed to carry the initiative forward, and that is how it ends. I don’t particularly have a problem with this and the fact that I don’t live in that state means that I didn’t have a dog in the fight realistically, but what I did have a problem with was the way the people in favor of Gay Marriage treated everyone to get to this point.

Several arguments were brought up along the way about why they shouldn’t have even been allowed to take the vote to begin with, and the most compelling on the outside of it all was the fact that “You can’t create laws to infringe on a citizen’s civil rights,” which I will show as hogwash in a minute. The other issues were simply battered down to name calling and using lowest common denominator tactics so I won’t really even acknowledge them, but I will say that I have issues on both sides of the isle on this just to be fair. I happen to support Civil Unions because I believe that that is all the state has a right to give, and I support marriage in churches that don’t find issues with it. In other words when this moves on to the next phase where Gay couples are marching in front of Catholic Churches demanding that they have to marry them by law, I will be openly opposing it all because despite the common belief that separation of church and state only applies to religion entering public facilities, it actually applies to the state forcing a religion on someone. I happen to believe that Anti-Religion is every bit as feudalistic of a religion as any, and has become the forced religion of most state governments up north here.

My other serious issue with all of this is that I have no doubt in my mind that had the people been allowed to vote on Gay Marriage it would have been approved by the people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly. It would have made the 4 highly activist judges that forced their agenda on the people moot, because the people would have immediately said that it is ok in their eyes, and this opens a far bigger can of worms. What would the Gay Rights activists do if they had actual approval of the public at large? It sounds rather stupid actually but the concept of having a demon to slay is all that a lot of them have and they would be as equally unhappy not having the public at large to beat up as being a bunch of insecure, closed minded, bigots and homophobes, as the small minority of people that actually are have with them in general. This was really what was defeated at the hands of the Massachusetts legislature and for damn good reason as well because that is a large majority of their political beliefs in that state. “There are bad people out there and we will defend you from them. Look there’s the person I am running against and they are one of the bad people that hate you personally!”

If we were to go back to the whole statute that the people and their representatives aren’t allowed to legislate the civil rights of others then allow me to ask what this is doing in the United States Constitution “Amendment XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” If I have been studying my Constitutional politics correctly that had to be put to a Constitutional Convention which would have had to have a popular vote of the American people in general thus making the United States the only country on the planet that outright abolished slavery by law as set forth to the people of the country. How about this one? “Amendment XV Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” We need to keep in mind that not only were these amendments ratified but they could have easily NOT been ratified thus making it a refusal of civil rights?

The problem in general is that ALL Civil Rights are given to the people by the legislature and you actually don’t HAVE a Civil Right until it has been proclaimed a Civil Right by Law anyway. Judges are NOT allowed to right law, only the legislature is. That is the LAW in every state constitution and the federal one as well. I wonder how the country would look if this hadn’t gone to a Constitutional Convention, “Amendment XIX The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Or possibly this one, “Amendment XXVI Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” Realistically I have had enough of people stealing rights by force and by the activist judges that have been stock piled throughout the court systems throughout the country, but I am even more fed up with people that don’t have the common decency to have faith in the people of the state or the country in which they live in. I happen to be a right wing whacko, and I have been in the forefront for civil unions for Gay couples for most of my adult life, but it is maneuvers like this one in Massachusetts that makes damn sure that being a conservative brands me a homophobe by the uninformed no matter what I do. Thanks again you cowards ;8o)

Nothing that was printed here was intended to offend anyone, and if it did, screw ya, you begged for it. If you believe that there are some measures that can be taken to change me, then please feel free to pray for me, and while you are at it yourself, because you read this far, and if you hated every minute of it, then you are an idiot, not me, or the other people who like what I have to say! .. Jeremy

I have been bouncing around online for just about 20 years, so I have been there and have done that. It doesn't mean I didn't like it and wouldn't do it again. As most humans, I am a social animal. To be a social animal on the internet it is social media that binds us all together. I prefer Google + and Twitter but have pages on the other ones that I ignore, so you probably should too.

My Blogging

I blog a lot. If you don't like people that blog a lot then I don't know how you got here to begin with. You may want to just move along.

Contrary to popular opinion I hate politics, but have political opinions ..

The easiest way to get under my skin is to apply the "all you talk about is politics" tag. This is a common knee jerk reaction some have when they see something political, and unfortunately I don't hold back sometimes. As a matter of fact, I share more about health, fitness and blogging than politics, which you would know if you weren't busy dismissing me. I actually follow and interact with more people that disagree with me than agree with me politically. The list of "other than politics" seems to be growing everyday and it probably looks a lot like this: